• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a horrible and attrocious situation. Absolutely hope he's convicted of Murder if nothing counters the evidence provided currently (which I can't imagine anything that would).

However, attempts to attack and slander cops is as ludicous as those who attempt to slander blacks because of the actions of criminals who happen to be black
 
The DOJ cannot sue for monetary compensation, as they have not been harmed.

Technically, yes, but a DOJ investigation yielding a pattern of abuse followed by a DOJ lawsuit can clear the way for a multi-million dollar class action citizen suit against the police.
 
Stress, the officer is clearly under an enormous amount of stress and trauma after the gangster attempted to kill him then thought better of it and ran to live to kill another day. When these poor little innocent people are pulled over by law enforcements what part of cooperate do they always fail to understand? Drop all charges and again it is simply another instance of law breaker s refusing to cooperate with the simplest of requests.
How many posters here have refused to cooperate with a police officer?
How many have ran ?
How many have attempted to disarm a police officer?

Drop all charges today.
 
there's no defending this one. a police officer is not allowed to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect eight times in the back.
 
All we could hear was you screaming some childish bigoted right-wing claptrap about Blacks, which likely came from your teacher rush.

Here's a new reading assignment. . .



As Jim Calhoun once said, "Get some facts and come back and see me."
And again you are screaming, making false assertions as well as not paying attention. :doh
I do not listen to the person. What do you not understand about that?
Nothing I said had anything to do with someones skin color. So you can also stop screaming./crying that.


As for your reading assignment. iLOL :doh
That does not support your claim, it actually refutes it. D'oh! :lamo
 
This is a horrible and attrocious situation. Absolutely hope he's convicted of Murder if nothing counters the evidence provided currently (which I can't imagine anything that would).

Convicting a cop of murder in a state like SC is impossible w/outside legal/financial pressure.
 
Two points:

1. I agree with pretty much everyone who believes this officer should suffer the consequences of his actions and be punished to the full extent of the law, period.

2. I can't help but find it sad and hypocritical that many of the same people posting here who frequently want to chime in that not all Muslims are terrorists, freely and vociferously are now claiming that all cops are murders like this one and the only difference is that they don't all get video taped in the act of murder.


based upon the 30 second video cnn posted this morning, this cop is guilty as hell

but...i still want to know a few things

what happened up to "that" point......cnn video show black guy running and officer firing 7-8 shots at his back

is there video from before that? i know a taser was involved...i saw the wires....is that video available?

unless there are MAJOR mitigating circumstances of which i am not aware yet, this cop is guilty of murder

and it should be an easy case....

so my question is....are there other circumstances of which i am not aware?
 
It's irrelevant what we think. The SC legal system will let the cop walk.

I doubt it, but I wish I could say I was sue justice would be done.
 
based upon the 30 second video cnn posted this morning, this cop is guilty as hell

but...i still want to know a few things

what happened up to "that" point......cnn video show black guy running and officer firing 7-8 shots at his back

is there video from before that? i know a taser was involved...i saw the wires....is that video available?

unless there are MAJOR mitigating circumstances of which i am not aware yet, this cop is guilty of murder

and it should be an easy case....

so my question is....are there other circumstances of which i am not aware?
Does it really matter what happened before? An unarmed man fleeing is not a threat that justifies lethal force.
 
Stress, the officer is clearly under an enormous amount of stress and trauma after the gangster attempted to kill him then thought better of it and ran to live to kill another day. When these poor little innocent people are pulled over by law enforcements what part of cooperate do they always fail to understand? Drop all charges and again it is simply another instance of law breaker s refusing to cooperate with the simplest of requests.
How many posters here have refused to cooperate with a police officer?
How many have ran ?
How many have attempted to disarm a police officer?

Drop all charges today.


The stop was for a broken tail light. "Gangster." :roll:

Soap operas have people who act better.
 
Does it really matter what happened before? An unarmed man fleeing is not a threat that justifies lethal force.


for me....yes

if i am sitting on the jury, and all i know is the 30 second video, then its murder 2......

but maybe, there are mitigating circumstances from before that 30 seconds.....

and maybe that gets the charge down to manslaughter

he is guilty of "something".....i would like to ascertain in my mind what that is......

and what happened before may or may not matter......

does that make sense?
 
Wrong. To qualify as a civilian, one must be unaffiliated w/any kind of military role, regardless of whether that military is called the "police force" of the national military.

Since US cops are already militarized, they serve in a military role and are therefore not civilians.

What military role do they serve in? They serve as the officers of the judiciary branch. They are NOT military. Your argument is not based on anything more than your ill formed opinion. They do NOT serve in a military role.
 
2. I can't help but find it sad and hypocritical that many of the same people posting here who frequently want to chime in that not all Muslims are terrorists, freely and vociferously are now claiming that all cops are murders like this one and the only difference is that they don't all get video taped in the act of murder.

Who is claiming that all cops are murderers?
 
Convicting a cop of murder in a state like SC is impossible w/outside legal/financial pressure.

In this case there is damning video.

Big difference.
 
I am asking you, as apparently you think it is to include it.
It may be important.
Until we know otherwise, it doesn't hurt to include information.

You're right though. The question of whether or not the Taser could fire more than once per loading may prove irrelevant.
The jurors may decide that the wires trailing from Slager to Scott are significant enough to answer the question of to what degree--if any--the Taser affects the situation.
Jurors could decide that Slager is seen casting something to his right just before he draws his firearm. They may determine that this is Slager dropping the Taser so that he can draw his firearm.
These sorts of thing could render the number of shots available with that Taser moot.


The best case for Slager is that jurors decide a reasonable person would see the fleeing Scott as a grave and imminent threat to the officer or the community at large.
 
Wrong. To qualify as a civilian, one must be unaffiliated w/any kind of military role, regardless of whether that military is called the "police force" of the national military.

Since US cops are already militarized, they serve in a military role and are therefore not civilians.

I agree with most of your posts in this thread but I disagree here. While we may think they are over militarized they are still civilian. We do, in fact, HAVE military police. They are called MPs and they enforce laws on military bases. But rest of them are civilian police officers. If they were not civilian then they would be prohibited from exercising authority under the Posse Comitatus Act. That act forbids military from performing law enforcement duties except for extreme and rare situations.
 
As it says, he's been arrested and charged with murder. As should be.

Wouldn't surprise me if he was acquitted considering our history with courts and charged officers.
 
Cops in SC rarely, if ever, get convicted for murder when they commit it--this is a well-documented fact.

For all practical purposes, they have a license to kill any non-White person they want at anytime.

But this should be a no-brainer, because when a cop is on trial, both the prosecuting attorney and the cop's public defender work to exonerate the cop, both prior to and during a trial.

Whereas when a civilian is on trial, only the civilian's (private) defense attorney(s) works to exonerate him/her, while the prosecution aims for a guilty verdict.

I'm not sure about that assertion. I sat on a jury years ago; a drug possession charge, and we all knew, as well as the defense, that the cops were lying, so we didn't convict: cops lying ruins their case.
 
That officer is a scumbag.

Man I'll say. The video on CBS This Morning did show a taser line, so something happened, but the guy ran away in slow motion and that cop could have easily caught him. He's gone. And YOU KNOW that that video is making all the rounds at police shift meetings.
 
It's irrelevant what we think. The SC legal system will let the cop walk.

I doubt it, especially since he has been charged . . . . when something shady is usually going to go down a lot of times they do an internal investigation and no charges are even filed.

Charges are filed and when the jury sees the video he is taking the long walk
 
Last edited:
Man I'll say. The video on CBS This Morning did show a taser line, so something happened, but the guy ran away in slow motion and that cop could have easily caught him. He's gone. And YOU KNOW that that video is making all the rounds at police shift meetings.
In addition to trailing wires, it also looks as though he tosses the Taser to his right immediately prior to drawing his pistol.
These two things seem to challenge the narrative that Slager thought Scott may have the Taser.

Then there's the little jog back to grab a little something near where it appears he would have dropped the Taser whose wires we saw earlier.
If I were a finder of fact, that wouldn't do too much for my confidence in the narrative that the possibility Scott had the Taser played into Slager's assessment of the situation.
I am open to new interpretations of what I have seen.
But on its face, what I have seen is not assuredly kosher.
There're sufficient reasons to question Slager's honesty on this matter.

And then the dropping of a little something near Scott...
Again, an action which seems to bear attention from a finder of fact, imho.

I am open to reasonable doubt about Slager trying to use the Taser as planted evidence to justify his shooting. Maybe there was some other thought process going on.
I'm open to hearing Slager's version of what he picked up, what he dropped, and why.

I'd really need a very good explanation about how the fleeing Scott was a grave imminent danger to Slager or the community at large.
So far, Scott fleeing doesn't seem that threatening.

I am having trouble picturing likely scenarios in which the video corresponds to the fleeing Scott being such a danger.

Doubtless others have totally worked out the most likely scenarios in which Scott presented a danger worth deadly force.
 
In this case there is damning video.

Big difference.

Evidence is irrelevant. Both the prosecution and public defender will strike out neutral jurors or any that have the slightest bias against cops. Once that's done, a unanimous guilty vote is impossible.

My estimate

Not guilty = 25% chance
Mistrial (hung jury) = 70% chance
Guilty = 5% chance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom